That "Unprecedented" Letter from the Republican Senators to Iran

Over the weekend, I had a liberal acquaintance link the following image on her Facebook:

And while I normally have a great deal of tolerance to publicly post ideas I disagree with, this one bothered me, specifically because I happen to know a bit of history about this very question.

You see, during the Carter Administration, the President (through his State Department) negotiated a treaty with the Soviets. The name of this treaty was the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II Treaty of 1979 (more commonly known by the acronym SALT II). And, generally speaking, the treaty was pretty bad for the US. It committed us to limitations in the very systems most feared by the Soviets, and in return they "promised" to limit the same classes of weapons (which they lacked the technology to duplicate on the scale we had). Before ratification before the Senate occurred, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. So the Senate balked. And in 1986, they flat out repudiated the treaty, and it was dead.

So, what would happen if 47 Senators told the "Russians" that they "shouldn't trust us" because we "wouldn't keep our end of the deal?" Well, I don't know about the exact number of Senators that killed SALT II (but I do know that it was Democrats who held the majority in the Senate in 1986, so that should tell you how bad the deal was), so it may not have been 47. And they didn't tell the "Russians" since it was actually the Soviet Union back then. And as for "they shouldn't trust us" I think the author is saying that "we won't ratify this piece of dreck" is saying "not to trust us" because we "wouldn't keep our end of the deal", but if that's how the Iranian theocratic dictators want to take it, I don't really care.

So I basically summarized all this, linked to the details of the treaty and called it a day. Strangely, no debate followed. I guess pithy quips via image macro are only so clever when there's no competing history to refute them.

4 comments:

Are there really any countries negotiating with us who are so ignorant that they don't understand a deal with our president doesn't mean much unless it include terms that the Senate is willing to ratify? If so, they must not pose much of a threat to us. They may well conclude that our president can't be trusted. Lots of us already knew that.

Well, there's Iran, who really can be that ignorant of a differing system of governance. They most assuredly a threat to us: "soon" via their intercontinental missiles under development with which to deliver their nuclear warheads to us and our friends and allies.

And sooner, with their terrorist clients armed with suitcase nuclear weapons, that need only glorified shank's mare to deliver.

As to 47 Senators told the "Russians" that they "shouldn't trust us" because we "wouldn't keep our end of the deal?", that's actually the argument of a motorboat skipper, a community organizer, and too many Senate Democrats who are either shockingly ignorant of our Constitution, or lying--you pick 'em.

Are there really any countries negotiating with us who are so ignorant that they don't understand a deal with our president doesn't mean much unless it include terms that the Senate is willing to ratify? If so, they must not pose much of a threat to us. They may well conclude that our president can't be trusted. Lots of us already knew that.

Apparently, based upon some of the "responses" I've seen about the letter from the Senate, it is pretty clear that no, the Iranians do not understand that a negotiation with the Administration does not equal a legally binding treaty. What's MORE troubling to me, and easily demonstrable from the words of the author over at the Daily Kos, is that plenty of Americans are equally ignorant of the Constitution:

"Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

[author's quote]I admit I felt quite a bit of schadenfreude as I read the words of this obviously intelligent and well read man lecturing these moronic Republicans about their own country's constitution and international law.The Iranian Foreign Minister added that "change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran's peaceful nuclear program." He continued "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law."

Except for the fact, you morons, that it is not an enforceable treaty until it is ratified by the Senate. And all you, Mr. "Eyesbright" and you, Mr. Iranian Foriegn Minister are doing is beclowning yourselves.

Sun Tzu's famous dictum notwithstanding, very often it's ignorance and misunderstandings that lead to war. They may not lead to an enemy victory, but they can certainly lead to damage.

Iran has a very complex government itself, actually. I doubt many Americans understand how it works. They way I explain it is that the Iranian 'founders' were concerned about the way that democracy can lead to the passions of the mob ruling the day just as our Founders were. We imposed a set of controls designed to protect liberty, for example by limiting the power of government so that passionate mobs simply weren't permitted to do many things, or by creating staggered elections in the Senate so that a moment of passion couldn't overturn the whole legislature, similarly lifetime terms at the Supreme Court.

Iran's founders decided to build controls to maximize not liberty but social stability. Democratic change is possible eventually, but it's subject to some heavy braking power from its governing institutions. Ultimately even the Supreme Leader can be replaced democratically, but not quickly or easily. It would require major and sustained democratic consensus for a number of years.